This paper deals mainly with the irregular forms of morphological inflection, namely the irregular past-tense forms and the irregular plurals in English. There are obviously two different models in the field of inflectional morphology which deal with these exceptional cases in different ways: the perspectives of ruled-based and pattern-based morphology.
To describe these two approaches, a first definition should clear the most strikingly differences: in general, a rule is a given regulation to simplify and organise an action equally in each situation, to form a uniform and predictable product. A pattern is the product in reverse; it is the solution of an examination of different situations to find similarities in the process for adapting it to analogical situations. The question is: How do these approaches affect irregular inflection? Or the better question: How are they able to affect irregular plural and past-tense forms in English and where do they fail? This is up to the present a highly discussed problem in linguistics.
Chapter 2 is about two morphological models: first the morpheme-based model, that regards each product as a sum of at least two morphemes that consist of a root and an affix modifying the root. The second part will present the word-based model that analyses the whole word as such to find out similarities (Bochner 1992 21-39).
In Chapter 3 the advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Where do these models fit perfectly and in which cases do they fail or do have only partial validity?
Chapter 4 will give a short introduction of a compromise of the two models. This theory combines advantages of both rule-based and pattern-based model, to eliminate or compensate failures the models have separated.
The last chapter 5 is a conclusion to the discussed approaches, whether one model is more productive and therefore preferred. An outlook is discussed, whether a compromise or a combination of the two models is able to compensate the particular failures of each model or whether they rival to each other in a way that makes a combination impossible.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Two morphological models
2.1 The morpheme-based model
2.2 The word-based model
3. Advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches
3.1 Advantages of the rule-based approach
3.2 Advantages of the pattern-based approach
3.3 Disadvantages of the rule-based approach
3.4 Disadvantages of the pattern-based approach
4. A compromise of the two approaches
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the mechanisms of irregular morphological inflection in English, specifically focusing on past-tense forms and pluralization. The central research question examines how rule-based and pattern-based morphological models account for irregular forms, where these models succeed or fail, and whether a potential compromise between them offers a more robust linguistic explanation.
- Comparison of morpheme-based (rule-based) and word-based (pattern-based) morphology.
- Analysis of productivity in regular versus irregular inflectional processes.
- Investigation of the mental lexicon and the role of schemas in pattern abstraction.
- Evaluation of the "blocking" effect and the frequency of irregular forms.
- Assessment of theoretical compromises like Parallel Distributed Processing.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Advantages of the pattern-based approach
As Tomasello (2000) discussed, the first processes of learning a language is collecting and storing concrete cases of a language in the mental lexicon (Booij 2010, 2). These cases are structurally analysed and the learner creates mental abstractions to define schemas for phonological, syntactical and semantically related words. The base in this approach is the mental lexicon, where existing items are listed, that speakers have to know because they are unpredictable and arbitrary signs (Aronoff & Anshen 2001, 127). The pattern-based approach has therefore no problems with irregular word-forms like irregular past-tense or plurals, because it analyses the product of the inflection to create patterns. For example: the past-tense form slept can be analysed by considering its present-tense form sleep and what process transformed present to past. Apparently, the stem has changed by transforming the vowel from [i:] to [ɛ]. The second process that occurred is that a [t] is added at the end (Bybee 1985, 50). According to this pattern the forming of the phonetically related irregular verb keep into its past-form is similar: the stem modifies by changing the vowel from [i:] to [ɛ] and a [t] is added at the end. In other words, sleep and keep or slept and kept share the same paradigm, because they underlie the same pattern. But the patterns are just a possible generalization, not restrictive rules. There is no rule that exactly this process is used to other words that share similar phonological or semantic shapes. For example, there is no restriction that the verb peep is inflected to the past-tense form pept. By analysing the word as a whole product there are no problems about both regulars and irregulars. An analysis of words and paradigms leads to an association of words with meanings and grammatical functions. For example, when the word keep is associated with grammatical property ‘past-tense’, it is realised as kept (Katamba 1994, 99). The information of the grammatical property is stored in the mental lexicon since it is defined that exceptions must be listed in the lexicon. Irregular plural forms are also no
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research problem regarding irregular inflection in English and introduces the two primary morphological models under examination.
2. Two morphological models: Defines the core mechanics of the morpheme-based (rule-based) and word-based (pattern-based) approaches to word formation.
3. Advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches: Evaluates the productivity and limitations of both models regarding regular and irregular inflections.
4. A compromise of the two approaches: Explores theoretical models like Connectionism that attempt to integrate the strengths of both rule-based and pattern-based systems.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting that neither model perfectly accounts for all linguistic phenomena, necessitating further discussion on their potential integration.
Keywords
Morphology, Inflection, Irregular Verbs, Irregular Plurals, Morpheme-based Model, Word-based Model, Mental Lexicon, Rule-based, Pattern-based, Connectionism, Syncretism, Paradigms, Productivity, Blocking, Linguistics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how English morphological inflection processes—specifically irregular past-tense and plural forms—are handled by different linguistic models.
What are the two primary morphological models discussed?
The study contrasts the morpheme-based approach, which relies on concatenation and rules, with the word-based approach, which utilizes holistic patterns and schemas within the mental lexicon.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine how these models explain irregular inflection and to assess their specific failures, particularly regarding cases where rules fail to predict correct forms.
Which scientific method is applied in this analysis?
The work utilizes a theoretical, comparative linguistic analysis based on existing literature to evaluate the productivity and constraints of rule-based versus pattern-based theories.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section explores the advantages and disadvantages of each model, providing examples of regular and irregular inflection, and discusses the challenges of base modification and syncretism.
Which key terms characterize this study?
Essential terms include morphology, mental lexicon, inflection, rule-based vs. pattern-based systems, productivity, and paradigms.
How does the word-based model handle irregular inflection?
Unlike the rule-based approach, it uses abstract word-schemas that represent paradigms, allowing the system to group similar items based on phonological or semantic similarities.
What problem does the morpheme-based model encounter with irregulars?
It struggles with cases like base modification and syncretism because it assumes every complex word must be a concatenation of at least two morphemes, which is not always physically true in irregular forms.
Why is the concept of "blocking" significant in this work?
Blocking explains why speakers prefer stored irregular forms (e.g., children) over rule-generated alternatives (e.g., childs), effectively preventing the over-application of regular rules.
What is the author's conclusion on a potential compromise?
The author concludes that while theoretical compromises exist, such as Connectionism, they often introduce new complexities and fail to fully resolve the issue of simplifying irregular word-forms.
- Quote paper
- Christiane Modes (Author), 2013, Rule-based versus pattern-based morphology, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/267705
